Optimum Population Trust

[Louis VI the Fat]

'The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK's long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million. Research and policy are summarised on this website'

I had never heard of he above organisation. They gained my attention, because they gained a very prominent patron: Sir David Attenborough, famous naturalist, a man whom I adore.

Sir David Attenborough said yesterday that the growth in global population was frightening, as he became a patron of an organisation that campaigns to limit the number of people in the world. The television presenter and naturalist said that the increase in population was having devastating effects on ecology, pollution and food production.

“There are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes only a mere 56 years ago,” he said, after becoming a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) think-tank. “It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of ecology, atmospheric pollution and in terms of the space and food production.

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people,” Sir David, who has two children, said.

I'll use the questions of the organisation itself as a starter for debate: 'Concerned about the speed of global warming? About food, water and energy scarcity - the effects of overpopulation on a plundered planet?'

[Xiahou]

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more.

Hmm... isn't the opposite usually true? This sounds like a lot of nonsense. Sure, the world can't support an infinite population, but I don't think we're near that threshold yet.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If we had a few massive wars every once in a while we wouldn't have this problem. Out of all the posts that hurt any political aspirations I may have the most, this is probably it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

“I’ve never seen a problem that wouldn’t be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more. Population is reaching its optimum and the world cannot hold an infinite number of people,” Sir David, who has two children, said.

Many problems easier to solve with more people...like "let's build this bridge". Quote out of context?

The native population of western countries is evening out/declining. So...we aren't going on as we have been. Improvements in technology increase the number of people the earth can support, and as countries become richer people stop having as many kids.

There's no doomsday scenario here.

[Samurai Waki]

Populations rise and fall, its quite a historically ordinary thing. We're at a point right now, that technologically speaking, we can support the numbers we do. Though it may be that only a fraction of that population live as well as most of the people here at the .org do. Eventually, somethings going to happen either biologically or technologically that will reduce the population, whether it be a massive disease, war, famine, or Cataclysm. The other side of the fence is that if technology sustains at the rate that we are producing, the eventuality of people physically leaving earth may also come about, though not in the near future.

These things are best argued with reason, no need to panic. Perhaps, we do need to limit the number of children people have, but the counter argument is whether thats worth sacrificing our moral fiber. Personally, I'd choose extinction.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hmm... isn't the opposite usually true?

Yes, with government being the notable exception.

[seireikhaan]

Hmm... isn't the opposite usually true? This sounds like a lot of nonsense. Sure, the world can't support an infinite population, but I don't think we're near that threshold yet.

How can we know what the threshold is?

Find out when we get there?

EDIT: Its pretty easy for us in the comfy west to say we haven't hit it. I imagine a Bangladesh(y?)(ese?)(ian?) might have a different view.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Look up Thomas Malthus and how wrong he was. The Human mind is the greatest asset we have. It literally creates wealth and sustinence seemingly out of thin air. More people are the answer, not less

[seireikhaan]

Look up Thomas Malthus and how wrong he was. The Human mind is the greatest asset we have. It literally creates wealth and sustinence seemingly out of thin air. More people are the answer, not less

Sweet, now I get to quote one of my favorite cartoons.

"Humankind can not obtain anything without first sacrificing something.
In order to obtain anything something of equal value is required."

Sure, we can turn seeds into wheat, wheat into beer, corn into oil, rocks into valuable metals. Yet there still comes a point when we must stand up to the fact that there is only so far we can stretch the limit. We've stretched it very, very far. Can we stretch it further? I honestly doubt it.

Want some proof? Go research what extensive over-agriculture has done to the top soil in the American midwest. Unless we reverse course in our agricultural practices, we shall run the soil, at least temporarily, barren.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Science got us into some of these messes, science will get us out.

[Fragony]

Look up Thomas Malthus and how wrong he was. The Human mind is the greatest asset we have. It literally creates wealth and sustinence seemingly out of thin air. More people are the answer, not less

Maybe he will be right, he didn't take improvements in agriculture into the equation and these were a major factor in the 19th century, doesn't prove his theory wrong.

[naut]

Condoms?

But seriously, there probably are way too many people, and have been for the last Century or so. Another large-scale war, famine, disease, global warming, scientific breakthrough and it'll reach equilibrium again.

[Xiahou]

EDIT: Its pretty easy for us in the comfy west to say we haven't hit it. I imagine a Bangladesh(y?)(ese?)(ian?) might have a different view.

Bangladesh has more problems than overpopulation. There are parts of the world with much higher pop. densities that are quite prosperous.

Have a look at this:

The idea that global populations levels are too high and must therefore be stabilized has been embraced by policymakers and opinion formers all over the world, from the UN to Al Gore. But there is no evidence to support this.

This report from demographic expert Nicholas Eberstadt shows how global living standards have improved dramatically all over the world over the past century despite a near-quadrupling of human numbers – and they can continue to improve at current and future population levels.

The concept of ‘overcrowding’ is widely misunderstood, conjuring images of hungry children, unchecked disease, squalid living conditions and teeming slums. These conditions are more properly termed as ‘human poverty’. In reality, there is no link between population and density– wealthy Monaco, for example, has a population density forty times greater than Bangladesh.

Want some proof? Go research what extensive over-agriculture has done to the top soil in the American midwest. Unless we reverse course in our agricultural practices, we shall run the soil, at least temporarily, barren.

Before we implement breeding controls, maybe we should stop turning corn into fuel. What a boondoggle that's been on pretty much every level....

[HoreTore]

Heaven knows I won't be contributing to over-population.

One brat should be more than enough...

[Fragony]

Heaven knows I won't be contributing to over-population.

We all know that Horetore...

[HoreTore]

We all know that Horetore...

Awwww.... It hurts when you say stuff like that, Frags

[Sarmatian]

How are they calculating this? How can UK be able to support 60 millions now and only 30 millions long-term?

[rory_20_uk]

This often comes down to what one wants from the earth.

These people often wants masses of untouched countryside where they can go and see the Beauty of Nature:

1. Dartmoor - man made by deforestation
2. Norfolk Broads - man made by drainage

Etc etc.

Of course in previous times such people would buy massive estates to keep the rabble away from them. Since there is increased right of way this is not an option. So best we cull the lot of them.

Yes, it's always seems to be them. I've never heard of these types not having any children or killing themselves. After all these changes are to make the planet nicer for them to appreciate.

I am based in London. I am used to the high density of people. I find this normal and acceptable. I like the parks. If you were to work out the square footage of each person it would be minute, but by sharing we all can use these pleasant spaces. Optimum is only true for the assumptions one has made beforehand.

[KukriKhan]

It's true: if you stick around long enough, you get to see everything twice*, or even 3 times. I remember 1974... Zero Population Growth was all the rage. Same song, slightly different tempo.

I think rory is onto something: in the early 70's, the mantra was all: "Let's get back to the land, have only 1.4 kids, and set our souls free!". But the guys saying that (despite their strategically-torn bell-bottom pants and 'can't afford a haircut' long hair) were well-to-do, and could afford that Colorado acreage they longed for - with the side benefit of keeping the riff-raff at arm's length.

*just don't expect to see me in a lime-green "Leisure Suit" when you come visit me at the Shady Rest Retirement Home and House of Euthanasia tm, 20 years hence. ~K.

[CountArach]

If we had a few massive wars every once in a while we wouldn't have this problem. Out of all the posts that hurt any political aspirations I may have the most, this is probably it.

Yeah I can't see that helping

[seireikhaan]

Bangladesh has more problems than overpopulation. There are parts of the world with much higher pop. densities that are quite prosperous.

Have a look at this:

Monaco can afford that population density because it doesn't have to feed itself- large scale agriculture, meatpacking, and fishing from other countries do that for them because they can afford to pay. If every country had that sort of population density, there wouldn't be any room left to actually grow the food to feed it. In other words, Monaco's position is one of pure luxury, not one of practicality for the other countries. Further, if other countries did end up with that sort of density, other nations would practically be forced into ag specialization to provide affordable food. That leads to the sort of bollox that the midwest is doing- squeezing out every drop of corn/wheat/soy etc... with little regard for what that sort of practice doest to the soil long term. Its literally not sustainable- the land will eventually dry up on you. All the fertilizer in the world can still only extend shelf life for so long.

Before we implement breeding controls, maybe we should stop turning corn into fuel. What a boondoggle that's been on pretty much every level....

Well, that would be a start.

[HoreTore]

Before we implement breeding controls, maybe we should stop turning corn into fuel. What a boondoggle that's been on pretty much every level....

Nonsense. What we should stop doing, however, is stop making fuel instead of fuel. There's plenty of left-overs after we've grown our food, however, so it really shouldn't be much of a problem.

But there really is no denying, that the fewer we are, the richer we are. The resources are the same no matter what we do, we can only change the number of people using them.

Of course, killing people or forcing people to stop having children is barbaric. But there's no sense in encouraging people to breed. I hear the doomsdayers say that unless we europeans start breeding, our economy will crumble because we will be too few people. Nonsense I say, we'll just import a few million refugee's, problem solved! And as an additional bonus, it'll lower the percentage of hillbilly Norwegians in this country! Double win!

The concept of ‘overcrowding’ is widely misunderstood, conjuring images of hungry children, unchecked disease, squalid living conditions and teeming slums. These conditions are more properly termed as ‘human poverty’. In reality, there is no link between population and density– wealthy Monaco, for example, has a population density forty times greater than Bangladesh.

What a retard. Comparing a retreat for rich tax-refugee's with a third world country? What is the guy on, honestly?

[rory_20_uk]

A jungle or a desert may have a low density of people, but no one is rich. There needs to be enough people in a given area to undertake tasks that are required by society - OK, we now can offload menial work to robots to get the density down.

Please don't get me wrong, the density in Monaco isn't sustainable to feed itself, but a city could be able to produce a lot of food itself if there was the desire to do so: the top of buildings, garden boxes, even hydroponics and channelled light could all be used, as could vertical farms where each level of a skyscraper is a greenhouse. Gardens and allotments are easier, simpler options.

As has been also mentioned, the amount of food that is wasted runs at c. 30% (including that from restaurants and past sell by date food). That's a massive amount of wasted time and energy. Acres would be freed up by just not doing this. And if we only ate close to the amount we needed...

[Sarmatian]

Nonsense. What we should stop doing, however, is stop making fuel instead of fuel. There's plenty of left-overs after we've grown our food, however, so it really shouldn't be much of a problem.

But there really is no denying, that the fewer we are, the richer we are. The resources are the same no matter what we do, we can only change the number of people using them.

It's technological advancement that makes us rich. We're richer now than we've been in middle ages and those living in middle ages were richer than those living in the stone age.

I can see mining asteroids and other planets much much before we use up resources on earth...

[Strike For The South]

More crowding=Better chance to cop a feel. I see no downside.

[Xiahou]

But there really is no denying, that the fewer we are, the richer we are. The resources are the same no matter what we do, we can only change the number of people using them.

The filthy rich have never been richer and the standards of living in developed countries has only increased as population grew.

What a retard. Comparing a retreat for rich tax-refugee's with a third world country? What is the guy on, honestly?

The point, which you haven't been able to refute, was that high population density does not equal poverty. High population density is no better an indicator of poverty than low population density is a measure of wealth. In both cases, it's a poor indicator.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Humans will be alright, one way or another, if only in a bleak, Bladerunner-like dystopia.

B..but what of our poor cuddly and furry friends with whom we share our world?

In the simplest terms, when a habitat is destroyed, the plants, animals, and other organisms that occupied the habitat have a reduced carrying capacity so that populations decline and extinction becomes more likely.[2] The single greatest threat to species worldwide is the loss of habitat.[3] Temple (1986) found that 82% of endangered bird species were significantly threatened by habitat loss. Habitat destruction is the primary cause of loss of biodiversity.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Hopefully a little genetical engineering will go a long way.

[Lemur]

I've heard some disturbing rumors about soylent green.

[HoreTore]

The filthy rich have never been richer and the standards of living in developed countries has only increased as population grew.

The point, which you haven't been able to refute, was that high population density does not equal poverty. High population density is no better an indicator of poverty than low population density is a measure of wealth. In both cases, it's a poor indicator.

Completely irrelevant, as is the argument that we're richer now than we were in the middle ages. We're richer now because we have accumulated more knowledge, which in turn has made us better at exploiting resources. You can't compare a time when we were fewer(like say the middle ages) and the present. You've got to ask; what would the situation be if we were 5 billion humans instead of 6 billion now?

And the answer to that, is that we would've been richer with 5 billion. The amount of resources would've been the same, and we would be able to extract just as much resources. Nothing would've changed except for the number of people to split the wealth on, and, unless you failed maths, should tell you that we would've been richer with 5 billion.